I think these are great tenets of skepticism for everyone to adopt. However, I do believe that they are fundamental tenets of all scientific fields. Indeed, the motto of the Royal Society adopted in 1662 is nullius in verba, which translates to “take nobody’s word for it”. Perhaps then the disagreement instead regards the extent to which different fields see these three important tenets as violated. Eg The term “settled” might mean above criticism (a clear violation) or shared by a consensus (not a problem). Tenet #2 can be just a fact (as is the case with me for most scientific fields), but importantly is not an immutable trait for any single person (as any of us are free to learn the science). #3 is just an all out assault on core scientific principles, but is it really the case that many climate scientists profess this view? I believe most published models share their parameters and are up for critique. I don’t feel personally qualified to critique the more technical aspects of these models, but I have thought a lot of inferring theory from data, so I do often feel competent to assess criticisms of climate science from the public. Eg the atmosphere is really big, so therefore it isn’t possible for human activity to influence it.
One can accept the basic concept, but have skepticism as to the level of accuracy of any particular model. Having said that the models have done a reasonable job - and much better than notable climate skeptic models How reliable are climate models? Fact Brief - Have climate models overestimated global warming? Even Exxon scientist got it mostly right with their models decades ago. Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say Now the intended usage of the model dictates its needed level of accuracy. If a climate model is 80% accurate that’s good enough. 80% accuracy is probably not good enough modeling the aerodynamics or an airplane for design purposes. This could be an example of an engineer applying an inappropriate standard for a model, but I really expect that it is mostly ideological, and the engineering is used as an excuse to elevate a preferred political narrative.
Of course. This is certainly how I view biologists’ acceptance of evolution. What I meant was that if we are going to open up the possibility that the views of an entire scientific field can be corrupted by tribal identity, we have to explain what makes other scientific fields immune to this epistemic illness. It is the case that much of everyone’s scientific knowledge is predicated on trust. While I feel qualified to personally defend the merits of evolutionary theory, I don’t feel near as capable of defending quantum gravity. Here, I am trusting that the physics community is operating the way it should. I haven’t seen good evidence to shake my faith in the climate science community. I am always skeptical of theories, and the earth is so complex that I wouldn’t be surprised to find many climate predictions end up off the mark. However, I think such skepticism based on uncertainty is a wholly different animal than denial, which implies certainty - a certainty achieved without scientific rigor. For all I know, climate scientists will end up being wrong in the other direction, underestimating the speed or magnitude of climate change.
This is an important point. Everyone assume that scientists are throwing out worst case scenarios. Jeremy Grantham an investor who gave a $ billion to climate causes, asserts it’s the opposite - by their nature scientists are going to tend to be conservative in their forecasts Scientists should say what they honestly believe instead of being so damn conservative - Jeremy Grantham. Be persuasive. Be brave. Be arrested (if necessary) | Nature
Theories are accepted and proven science, like the theory of relativity. You are mistaking the scientific definition of theory and the popular culture version which is basically a hypothesis.
Maybe I worded this poorly. What I meant was that I reserve some skepticism even for our most accepted theories of scientific knowledge. That is not to say that I am confident that they are wrong. Our best explanations are still the best, but all knowledge can be revised in the future. Basically I am just taking the stance of fallibilism.
I’ve always heard the “experts” say it’s more of a tech company hence the valuation. Check out what they plan on doing with autonomous vehicles. It may not be next year but it will happen.
In the past unlike other autonomous vehicles Tesla has refused to use LIDAR and relies exclusively on cameras, and as a result occasionally a camera might not “see” something and the Tesla plows into it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/ While this is probably better than what unassisted humans would do, it probably isn’t good enough for full driverless driving.
I’m just saying give it time. They also have years of data for AI from all the cars they have on the road. That will help. Nobody thought they could land a booster on a barge in the ocean automatically either.
This is the Ausangate glacier in the Andes in Peru. It is the lifeblood for tens of thousands of people. 12 years ago it covered the entire face of that mountain to my left and out of the picture all the way down to the lake. Our guide showed me the pic. Massive migration is going to occur when these glaciers like this dry up
I’d be curious to see the rate of accidents based on miles driven in auto mode vs non-auto mode and see if it is safer as Tesla suggests. Form the article… “In a March presentation, Tesla claimed that Full Self-Driving crashes at a rate at least one-fifth that of vehicles in normal driving, in a comparison of miles driven per collision. That claim, and Musk’s characterization of Autopilot as “unequivocally safer,” is impossible to test without access to the detailed data that Tesla possesses.”
Ultimately, it comes down to the specific situation. In many developing countries, there is very little reason to go to ICE/hybrid because people will eventually jump from a two-wheeler to either an electric two-wheeler or a very cheap electric car. But I could see some situations in which a country has an extensive gas network but lower income population and/or possibly a weak electrical system. In those situations, hybrids or ICE might make more sense. I just suspect that those situations are pretty rare (none are immediately coming to mind).
Yeah, but Europe is doing the same thing for the same reasons. Not the far right though. They are all about Putin and China, and have openly stated as much.
Not sure what the last part has to do with our discussion. Are you saying the “far right” support China? Europe has overall energy issues as it is. They don’t have the power generation capacity to support massive EV use but need far less cars overall.
